An analysis of Zimbabwe’s political situation
DARKNESS AT NOON: An Analysis of Zimbabwe’s Political Situation
Greater Repression Ahead as ZANU PF Remains Cornered
After the 29 March 2008 relatively free and fair general election won by the then opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), ZANU PF engaged in violent political repression against pro-democracy activists especially after its leader, Robert Mugabe lost to the MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai in the Presidential poll.
The regime enlisted the support of the army to run the presidential run-off against unarmed civilians whose only crime was to select a leader and party of their choice. The result of that June 27 poll is what brings Zimbabwe to the sad state it is today, a country governed by an illegitimate ZANU PF elite that derives its powers from the coercive apparatuses of the State, the army, police and the secret agents.
Dismissing Mugabe’s sham electoral victory were the AU and SADC observer missions joined by the EU, the Confederation of South Africa Trade Unions (COSATU) and individual countries such as Botswana and Zambia who were very clear on the illegitimacy of the Harare regime.
ZANU PF and its leader, Mugabe is slowly returning to the pre-GPA situation as it prepares for a violent election. The spate of arrests of pro-democracy forces and Members of Parliament from the MDC indicate that the ZANU PF violent machinery is at work.
Mugabe needs to appreciate that world leaders and leading democracies will refuse to legitimize a violent electoral process and outcome and his situation will be more difficult after the fall of his regional ally Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. The message across the Limpopo from the new administration clearly indicates that business would not be as usual until Zimbabwe has a legitimate government. The call by President Jacob Zuma to have a democratic road map to the holding of future elections sends a clear message to ZANU PF that a rigged poll is unacceptable.
Meanwhile Mugabe has already identified his enemies as civil society, foreign companies, the political opposition, European countries and the US administration for imposing targeted sanctions against the violent and criminal elements associated with his 30-year old rule.
ZANU PF remains in a worse situation because the US president, Barrack Obama has been loud and clear in calling for democratic order in the country and his condemnation of Mugabe’s repressive policies. There is certainly a desire on the part of SADC and AU to bring Zimbabwe back to democratic legitimacy.
It is clear that ZANU PF’s Look East Policy has failed hence its continued cries to re-engage the West by removing the sanctions it claims were imposed on the country although the sanctions regime deals with individuals in ZANU PF, government and business who aide and abate political and human rights violations in the country.
The doors to re-engagement with the West are also shut by virtue of the fact that the West still feels that the Mugabe regime has not complied with set conditions to restore the rule of law, improve its human rights record, and ensure genuine freedoms of the people of Zimbabwe through repealing repressive legislation, and disbanding youth militias. Clear pronouncements to that end have come from the United Kingdom, EU and the US.
The unanimous decision by the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on ZANU PF’s long time ally dictator, Muamar Gaddafi leaves the regime in a serious political quandary. It is the Security Council’s decision to refer Gaddafi’s criminal conduct in the uprising in Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC) that unsettles ZANU PF most, especially because that decision was taken with the consent of Russia and China, countries that usually block such moves. Most critically, ZANU PF thought that the two countries will shield them against international censor on charges against human rights violations. International politics and relations have dramatically changed and ZANU PF should think again on its electoral and human rights violations as the country prepares for the next election.
For the last 10 years, civil society, the progressives in Zimbabwe and the International community have been advocating for the repeal of POSA, AIPPA and other such repressive legislation reminiscent of colonial and apartheid times. Consistently ZANU PF has stood in defense of this repressive legislation as necessary to maintain law and order in Zimbabwe. Instead of bowing down to popular sentiments and repealing these laws, the government has moved further in the route of repression by continuing to promulgate laws that demean the substance and social fibre of the country.
Indications are that the Public Order and Security Act, a worthy successor to Ian Smith’s Law and Order Maintenance Act, is still a favored tool of rule by ZANU PF and its use might be heightened if the political impasse continues. It should not be forgotten that the central objective of promulgating these laws and the setting up of other institutions and infrastructure of repression, was to silence the democratic forces in Zimbabwe, and for as long as ZANU PF’s legitimacy is questioned, it will continue to use these draconian laws as safe guards to its rule.
Wither Zimbabwe: Prospects of resolution
Zimbabwean politics reads like a nomad’s diary. Fraught with promises of a better future, every election has been read as a unique opportunity to set the pace for development through creating a new vision that people must rally behind.
The result has been increased commercialization of democratic processes at the expense of genuine people’s interests. The hunger for power has seen the emasculation of the citizenry as politicians continuously see themselves as the “be all” and the “end all” of the crises affecting the country. Adorned in robes depicting economic and social salvation, many of the country’s politicians from the ZANU PF regime have cajoled the country’s citizenry into believing that the greatest enemy is outside the country, and anyone averse to their principles is selling out.
The discovery of diamonds in Marange is now being used a panacea to the country’s economic and political ills that the ZANU PF regime blames on others other than itself. ZANU PF now calls upon its cohorts and cabal to rally behind the indigenization program which is clearly a euphemism for the ZANUfication of the economy and nationalization of private property, a tested and failed policy associated with bankrupt and autocratic regimes.
ZANU PF’s loss in the 2008 general election has a number of ramifications in terms of governance and democracy. The first inclination for the party is its increased sense of fear and threat against the country’s independence by outsiders who it accuses of supporting the opposition through sanctions.
The regime will use this warped thinking to abuse human rights on the misguided view that they are safeguarding the national interest when it is clear that the citizens are no longer interested n the hollow and bankrupt politics of a tired liberation discourse wrapped in a farce of oppression.
In this regard, civil society organizations and the democratic opposition have huge challenges. They have to continue to guard against complacency by not believing that the Inclusive Government made up of three political parties alone can resolve the crisis.
It is at this juncture of a possible political transition built on the outcome of the 29 March 2008 general election that civil society groups should remain independent and continue to push for the full democratization of the country premised on the rule of law. Half baked measures such as the government of national unity should be left to politicians while civil society groups continue to push for the total dismantling of the repressive political order in the county.
Civic groups should ride on the current moves by SADC, AU and the international community to refuse to legitimize the ZANU PF regime after its violent 27 June 2008 presidential election sham as a victory for the struggle for democracy in the country and continue to lobby the national, regional and international communities for a fully fledged democratic Zimbabwe.
The Case for Transitional Justice and the Way Forward
Zimbabwe is a case of a failing transition from autocracy to democratic order as a result of years of lawlessness and impunity associated with the ZANU PF government. For the regime and its associates, the loss of political power implies criminal prosecutions. What then should be done in a new Zimbabwe to deal with the past and to move forward as a nation?
International law requiring punishment of atrocious crimes and most critically international pressure for compliance can provide important counterweight to pressure from Zimbabwe’s ruling elite responsible for the Matebeleland and Midlands massacres, the June 2008 burning to death of opposition activists at Jerera growth point in Masvingo province and other heinous criminal activities.
It is argued that when prosecutions are administered and undertaken pursuant to the provisions of international law forbidding acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes, they are less likely to be perceived or opposed as acts of revenge.
It is easy to believe that prosecutions that come after the fall of a dictatorship are politically motivated when a decision to institute them is a matter of unbridled discretion; justice is readily mistaken for vengeance hence the need to deliver justice to Zimbabweans under strict provisions of international law such as the provisions of the Convention Against Torture and some aspects of domestic law which forbids torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of citizens.
Several human rights treaties which form part of international law such as the Convention Against Torture to which Zimbabwe is a party as well as the United Nations Charter itself require States parties to criminalize particular abuses such as genocide and torture, investigate violations and seek to punish the wrongdoers. These treaties make it clear that a State party fails in its duty to ensure the cluster of rights protecting physical integrity if it does not investigate violations and seek to punish those who are responsible.
Zimbabwe needs its political leadership to be accountable to their misdeeds in order to create a law abiding culture in the country. It is important to have such critical, complex and in some respect controversial circumstances in order for future political leaders in Zimbabwe to respect the call to act responsibly when they assume the leadership of the country.
More so, that kind of accountability will force the political players to instill in their supporters a sense of respect for the rule of law, allow the security forces to realize their constitutional mandate and desist from operating like militias and political commissars of rogue political leaders.
Zimbabwe is currently littered with numerous cases of impunity because of the total disregard for the rule of law that is supported by the country’s ruling party and in order to return to law and order there is need for those responsible for gross human rights violations to account to the justice system in order to heal those whose fundamental rights as protected by the law were violated.
It can be argued that beyond taking criminal proceedings against human rights violators in the country, in order to promote reconciliation not the one Mugabe promoted in 1980 which was not statute based but rhetorical, a truth commission which strives to investigate past human rights abuses; provide an official forum where victims of ZANU PF and security forces abuses and perpetrators alike can tell their stories and offer evidence and to prepare an authoritative report that documents the events, makes conclusions and suggests ways in which similar abuses and atrocities can be avoided in future.
The findings and recommendations of such a body should be made public.
Any post- Mugabe truth commission should make recommendations for reparations to be given to the victims of state organized murders, violence and abuses which must take the form of cash payments, pensions, free access to health care and psychiatric treatment, or public memorials and national remembrance days. But beyond that, efforts should be made to seek compensation from the perpetrators such as senior government and ruling party officials and security forces rather than relying on the government alone.
Even if amnesty could be exercised, as in the case of South Africa, it should be conditional. In order to foster a democratic society, no person should be given amnesty unless he or she applies for it, makes a full disclosure of the crimes, and establishes that the crimes were committed with a political objective. In this regard, wrongdoers and hardliners within the political establishment in Zimbabwe who fail to follow this course should be prosecuted.
It is argued that for amnesty to be legally valid amnesty must be adopted by democratic bodies in the case of Zimbabwe; Parliament should be allowed to exercise that role. Self established amnesty by a lawless government such as the one in Zimbabwe which is the critical player in the allegations of human rights violations would not be valid.
If Zimbabwe is to return to democratic legitimacy, any new government or political order after Mugabe should further respond to human rights violations by adopting laws which bar certain categories of former government officials and party members from public employment. Such measures will not be new to Zimbabwe; they have worked well in post-communist governments in Europe and Latin America.
A successful transition to democracy demands the removal from public institutions of individuals who may have taken part in violating human rights.
In order for such issues to take hold, Zimbabwe must have a new people driven constitutional order that respects the fundamental freedoms of its people. In this regard, civil society organizations should work together to realize this ideal by continuously working with other pro-democracy groups to democraticize Zimbabwe beyond the current political arrangement between the three political parties.
